nah it's natural
-
Well, maybe you aren't aware of how it's being used to design proteins to create therapies for pretty much... everything, from cancer to Crohn's. Another 2-3 years before you see products in human trials.
Or how it's revolutionized climate science and weather forecasting.
If all you see is the hype Grok images and SEO slop, it's reasonable to reject the technology. But that would be deeply misguided.
I'm aware of the promises of AI, yes. LLMs are trash. Folding proteins is awesome. Nonetheless, it's all controlled by the ultrawealthy, and that is THE problem today, which AI ain't solving for us.
-
If we all fart in the wind, maybe it'd be enough to actually smell it.
Wait, that can't be right.
Negative farts
-
Yet "you have to have a car to work" like ok no for one fuck you for two we have several modes of transport AND energy sources now you actually do choose actively to diarrhea out carbon on purpose and I fucking see you
Depends a lot on where you are from. Not everyone has the means to uproot and move to a walkable city or a city with public transport.
Our governments have fundamentally failed us
-
We don’t exactly know where the tipping point towards a Venus Scenario is. We just know it’s somewhere past +12℃, and before +16℃.
And the problem isn’t so much that we will reach that temp - we will go extinct long before that point - but rather the warming process - with all of the feedback loops that it kicks off - will push the planet into a Venus Scenario.
So no. The planet is not fine. The “friction” of prior warming events that would slow its “inertia” - the slowly-migrating, slowly-adapting biospheres that continue to draw down CO2e - won’t have that capability this time around. It’s just all happening far too fast for them to migrate or adapt.
We have literally “cut the brakes” with the speed and inertia of the current warming we have created. And one very real consequence may be a dead planet with a superheated atmosphere.
Maybe we kick off a nuclear winter before we go out
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is my boomer dad whenever he complains about it being extremely hot in the summer, cold in the winter, too much rain, etc. Always responds well it won't last too long and that's just nature, nothing we can do about it because it has a mind of its own.
-
I am optimistic. I will get downvoted to oblivion, but I want to share what I honestly observe:
1. AI demand is driving huge investment in production of carbon-free energy at scale.
Yes, AI is sucking up all the immediate term cheap fossil-fuel energy while it can. But it needs more, so it's driving carbon-free investment.
Immediate term with Small Modular fission Reactors (SMRs)
... and immediate term, multiple commercial fusion energy plants are being built.
2. Commercially viable carbon-free energy at scale is coming online in < 10 years
SMR is real, exists today, and just needs economies of scale ... and stable regulation. AI datacenters are driving the orders now and even if MAGA cultists keep USA out a few more years, science-accepting countries will be investing in clusters of those, rather than coal plants, when they see working examples and so less risk.
The Fusion plants this decade will not be just prototypes, but plants that produce more energy as a whole than they take in, multiple times over, and ofc don't produce nuclear waste. This is largely made possible by high temperature superconductors (which didn't exist commercially when ITER was built) and a demo plant fully online in 2027
EDIT: ofc we should reduce excess CO2 emissions immediate term, don't misconstrue long term optimism for polyannish denial of imemdiate term emergency
AI demand is driving huge investment in production of carbon-free energy at scale
I feel like AI companies are creating a large demand for energy no matter where it comes from, and feel like having some minor investments in potential carbon free energy is mainly a marketing ploy or something to point at if they ever get sued.
Immediate term with Small Modular fission Reactors (SMRs)
Tbh, the big problem with nuclear in america is that we don't really have the federal power needed to actually coordinate and mandate the needed infrastructure for it. The US is so obsessed with state rights that we're susceptible to nimby attacks and disputes at the local and State level governments.
To actually cut through the red tape, we'd have to empower federal agencies for a good reason for once, and I'm not very optimistic about our current political climate.
and immediate term, multiple commercial fusion energy plants are being built.
Yeah..... I think it would be more accurate to say that fusion experimental sites are being built. Most nuclear engineers I've heard talk about fusion are still skeptical about fusion being viable in the next 20 years.
-
Ah yes, Teddy Roosevelt, the Trump of the 1800s.
-
Idk man remember when that ozone hole was supposed to kill us all but we started fixing it in like 10 years? How about when we decided plastic would choke the oceans to death only to find that microbes are busily learning how to break down all those man made forever polymers? Member those? Meeeember?
I don't know about 10 years, but the hole has yet to close completely and required effort on OUR part; and if you think that something like the Pacific Trash Island is something that only we "decided" was bad, then I can't convince you. Just "member" these when you run out of convenient excuses.
-
This post did not contain any content.
My parents believe we’re in the end times and god will return any day now. They were mentally ill from the get go. They are pure evil and don’t see the evil they are.
Go figure they’re also extremely obese and mostly immobile. They are sloths and glutens. They never took care of themselves and believe bullshit snake oil salesmen over their own children’s advice.
You can’t reason with the evil that is these fundamental cultists.
-
Do you think these are just different technologies that happened to have been developed simultaneously? These are all from the same spark. Neural networks giving rise to emergent unexplainable phenomenon when prodded in very very specific ways. Ai research is almost all trying to understand how the fuck that happens and why it can do all these things.
Radiology is a good use case. Ai porn maybe not so much.
But as god help me. You are saying that cruising in a several ton metal missiles, often alone, back and fourth over the planet or to McDonalds is necessary! No transportation isn't often necessary! Americans often say this but DUH you didn't build sidewalks or trains! You astroturfed the shit out of oil. This is very embarrassing, I get it, but GOD DANN NO transportation with exploding dinosaurs that you frack out of gorgeous boreal forests ISNT NECESSARY AT ALL, we have invented train, bus, bicycle, electric cars, please for god sake stop working for astroturfing oil company proxies and get a fucking bike and then spit and be rude to all single drivers in all cities.
Americans often say this
First off, I'm not American.
You are saying that cruising in a several ton metal missiles, often alone, back and fourth over the planet or to McDonalds is necessary!
First of all, fuck off, I've flown back and fourth across the planet exactly once and that was to see my father before he died. I hadn't seen him in 25 years, because he left to the US to pursue something resembling income when I was 2, as our own country was only just getting started economically. Second of all, I said it's "often necessary", not strictly always necessary.
we have invented train, bus, bicycle, electric cars, please for god sake stop working for astroturfing oil company proxies
Who's been astroturfing oil company proxies? And anyway, when talking about the CO2 impact, trains, buses and electric cars are part of the number. Bicycles quite a bit less, because the CO2 there is production (once per bike and not comparable to a car or a train) and the extra food you need to eat. But trains, buses and electric cars absolutely do use energy - and therefore increase CO2 emissions, even if indirectly.
But the most important part
Do you think these are just different technologies that happened to have been developed simultaneously? These are all from the same spark. Neural networks giving rise to emergent unexplainable phenomenon when prodded in very very specific ways. Ai research is almost all trying to understand how the fuck that happens and why it can do all these things.
Radiology is a good use case. Ai porn maybe not so much.
I realize that neural networks are the basis of all that, but I'm saying we don't need to be pushing everyone to use a super energy-expensive chatbot instead of a regular search. We don't need AI chatbots embedded into literally every software application we use daily. This doesn't benefit the research, it benefits stock values because AI is a buzzword and you CAN'T run a publicly traded company without saying you're harnessing the power of AI, shareholders will literally murder you.
That's why people are dunking on AI instead of cars. Because 99% of public-facing AI is useless shit people actively dislike and so is 99% of AI energy usage. With cars, I'm willing to bet at least 10% of trips are strictly necessary, and 40-50% of trips are deemed necessary because of stupid car-centric city design with no transit, so still necessary, but for the wrong reasons. I doubt more than about 50% of trips are just leisure altogether. But these are just numbers pulled out of my ass to illustrate a point: There is some car travel that is necessary, some car travel that could be avoided by political change, but is currently necessary for the people doing it. But very little AI usage that is necessary.
Google, Microsoft, etc, aren't building billions upon billions of dollars worth of data centers at a never-seen-before pace to run models that benefit humanity. They're doing it because right now all the money in the world is in building a better "Here are the tallest buildings in NYC to jump off after losing your job" machine than your competitor, and shoving it in more products nobody asked for.
And worst of all, just shoving more and more input data at larger and larger LLMs alone isn't likely to cause new breakthroughs in AI. For all we know, it might be a dead end in the search of AGI - and they're well into diminishing returns as far as investing more and more energy into training new models is concerned.
For sure cars are worse for the planet than AI. But cars DO something. They get you to places. AI tells you how to kill yourself, or how to make pizza with glue, etc. Its best use cases are for cheating at homework, and replacing human workers without even making sure AI CAN do their jobs (good luck hiring all your support staff back, Klarna). It's currently a completely new plague on the planet, and tech CEOs are doing everything to point it out more and more. You know when was the last time I heard anything from Gernot Döllner or Ola Källenius? Fucking never. They don't shove themselves everywhere to let you know what they're doing to destroy the planet. At best they'll tell you what they're doing to reduce their impact. But tech CEOs right now will outright tell you they're going to fire everyone they can, build as many energy-intensive data centers as they can, and drain desert towns of their last drinking water, just so you could see what it would be like if the chick from Avatar had 3 boobs.
THAT is why people are mad at the AI industry.
Americans often say this
-
It's the truth
Oh please. It's like you didn't even read my comment. Your claim may be "true" but it's precisely what governments and polluters want you to be thinking and saying. "I personally can't do anything about this."
-
geoengineering
Maybe, but its like natural gas; going to be used as an excuse to mot fix anything else and jack off about svifi bullshit til we all die.
Not that it couldn't alao be a useful tool in tje hands of responsible adults.
At a certain point you have to ignore the " but someone will use it as an excuse" argument, that's been the response for decades. It can't mean that because someone could object you just have to do nothing ever.
-
At a certain point you have to ignore the " but someone will use it as an excuse" argument, that's been the response for decades. It can't mean that because someone could object you just have to do nothing ever.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Geoemgineering needs to be discredited so people dont buy it as an alternative to everything else, but a supplimental.
Because it's really tempting. It promises not having to change our daily lives, if you don't listen too close
-
Maybe we kick off a nuclear winter before we go out
Honestly, if we’re talking about mostly or completely surface blasts, and not atmospheric detonations, that might be what saves the planet.
Nuclear winter is very much a thing by how the thrown-up dust reflects most incoming light, and with most detonations being in cities, the kicked-up dust would contain plenty of iron… which is the major limiting factor of phytoplankton, the largest single converter of CO2 to O2. All it has to do is fall out of the atmosphere and into the oceans during the spring to summer. So we need a late winter or early spring nuclear war.
-
I am optimistic. I will get downvoted to oblivion, but I want to share what I honestly observe:
1. AI demand is driving huge investment in production of carbon-free energy at scale.
Yes, AI is sucking up all the immediate term cheap fossil-fuel energy while it can. But it needs more, so it's driving carbon-free investment.
Immediate term with Small Modular fission Reactors (SMRs)
... and immediate term, multiple commercial fusion energy plants are being built.
2. Commercially viable carbon-free energy at scale is coming online in < 10 years
SMR is real, exists today, and just needs economies of scale ... and stable regulation. AI datacenters are driving the orders now and even if MAGA cultists keep USA out a few more years, science-accepting countries will be investing in clusters of those, rather than coal plants, when they see working examples and so less risk.
The Fusion plants this decade will not be just prototypes, but plants that produce more energy as a whole than they take in, multiple times over, and ofc don't produce nuclear waste. This is largely made possible by high temperature superconductors (which didn't exist commercially when ITER was built) and a demo plant fully online in 2027
EDIT: ofc we should reduce excess CO2 emissions immediate term, don't misconstrue long term optimism for polyannish denial of imemdiate term emergency
Yes, AI is sucking up all the immediate term cheap fossil-fuel energy while it can. But it needs more, so it’s driving carbon-free investment.
Nah, this is the same nonsense lie cryptobros tried to peddle. Any energy used by AI is energy which could have been used for something more worthwhile, carbon-free or not. And most of it is far from carbon-free.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Younger generations are ignoring it as well. They're busy blaming past generations, while they themselves are some of the biggest contributors to our current climate crisis.
-
Geoemgineering needs to be discredited so people dont buy it as an alternative to everything else, but a supplimental.
Because it's really tempting. It promises not having to change our daily lives, if you don't listen too close
And that's been the statement people make every time for the last 15 years. But at a certain point there is only people that accept it and people who will never do so until they die.
Small scale tests have to be done slowly over time, and it's best to do that now at the very least so we have a good grasp of what won't work at scale so we didn't chase means that are less practical.
But the real point is that very few people commenting actually read the article. This was about marine cloud brightening, where they're only making clouds slightly brighter. It's the least offensive option possible that is technically a thing that everybody likes more anyway. People act like mr burns blocking the sun.
The only one that has any real risk is the iron fertilization concept because changing the limited ingredient in an ecosystem could possibly have an effect on the system.
-
This post did not contain any content.
People of every generation were told it doesn't matter and that it won't be a problem. With the advent of social media and associated algorithms, the village idiots are loud, organised and getting others to bark at the moon with them.
-
Hey man, can I get a couple Adderall?
Good sleep does this to me, amphetamines calm me down
-
And that's been the statement people make every time for the last 15 years. But at a certain point there is only people that accept it and people who will never do so until they die.
Small scale tests have to be done slowly over time, and it's best to do that now at the very least so we have a good grasp of what won't work at scale so we didn't chase means that are less practical.
But the real point is that very few people commenting actually read the article. This was about marine cloud brightening, where they're only making clouds slightly brighter. It's the least offensive option possible that is technically a thing that everybody likes more anyway. People act like mr burns blocking the sun.
The only one that has any real risk is the iron fertilization concept because changing the limited ingredient in an ecosystem could possibly have an effect on the system.
you don't exist
Shit. Can i put you in front of my therapist? Been having this argukent and it woukd be great to have someone else on my side.
thing completely unrelated to anything i said that you just like to think about
There are less cool obsessions, sure.
